from the get-over-yourselves dept

FairSearch, the increasingly silly and shrill looking "coalition" of tech companies which have nothing in common other than a visceral hatred for Google (it's led by Microsoft) has so far failed miserably in convincing regulators that Google was an antitrust problem. Now it's filed a new attack on Google in the EU, arguing that its Android mobile strategy is anti-competitive because it gives Android away for free.

“Google is using its Android mobile operating system as a ‘Trojan Horse’ to deceive partners, monopolize the mobile marketplace, and control consumer data,” said Thomas Vinje, Brussels-based counsel to the FairSearch coalition. “We are asking the Commission to move quickly and decisively to protect competition and innovation in this critical market. Failure to act will only embolden Google to repeat its desktop abuses of dominance as consumers increasingly turn to a mobile platform dominated by Google’s Android operating system.”

[....] Google achieved its dominance in the smartphone operating system market by giving Android to device-makers for ‘free.’

What's especially ridiculous here is that Microsoft, who is the major source behind FairSearch, dealt with this exact issue itself back during its antitrust fights, when people ridiculously accused it of the same thing for daring to give out Internet Explorer for "free." The idea that giving away some software for free is somehow anti-competitive is just laughable. That this is now being pushed by a bunch of companies who themselves use the exact same benefits of giving away free software to promote other parts of their business is just the height of cynical exploitation of the political process to try to hamstring a competitor in red tape, rather than competing in the marketplace.

Law Professor James Grimmelman, who is hardly a big Google supporter (he was among those who fought the hardest against the Google Books settlement) properly called this new filing by FairSearch "disgusting." It's a blatantly cynical attempt by Microsoft, Nokia, Expedia, TripAdvisor and Oracle to use a totally bogus legal complaint to just waste a competitor's time. All of those companies rely on free software in some form or another. No one in their right mind argues that offering free software is somehow anti-competitive. It seems that FairSearch has now reached hysterical desperation as it attempts to justify itself.

from the liability-confusion dept

Apparently some regulators in Taiwan's capital city of Taipei have extended some consumer protection laws such that they've ordered Google and Apple to start providing 7-day free trials of every app, in either the Apple App Store or the Google Android Marketplace, or face large fines. The issue is that the consumer protection laws require a grace period for returns, which neither of these services provide to the extent that Taipei regulators would like. Apple and Google, quite reasonably, point out that they should not be liable as third parties, suggesting (implicitly) that it should be developers themselves who are responsible for obeying any sort of consumer protection regulations. However, Taipei regulators aren't buying it:

"Such a claim is an irresponsible business practice," Yeh said.

The two companies have been given 15 days to comply with the law, and if they are unable to do so, they could be facing significant fines. It does make me wonder if either company even has the functionality to offer such things across the board, and how various developers would feel about that.

from the dead-and-buried dept

This is from a little while ago, but I'm just catching up on some older stories. Reader Rabbit80 points us to the news that Nokia has finally put its "Comes with Music" program out of its misery and shut it down. Comes with Music was actually an interesting idea: you buy a phone and for 12 months you get free music downloads. At a conceptual level, this sounds great: you're using the abundant (free music!) to make the scarce (mobile phone!) more valuable. But, like everything, a good idea can be marred by the execution. And, in this case, the execution involved the major record labels demanding that "Comes with Music" really mean "Comes with DRM'd Music." A year and a half ago we pointed out that Comes With Music was really getting very little uptake, and the decision to kill it off just confirms how weak the pickup was.

Nokia says that it was the DRM that was the real killer:

"The markets clearly want a DRM-free music service."

And, of course, there was nothing stopping the labels from allowing a DRM-free service, but they still have this infatuation with DRM, even though they finally came around to ditching the DRM on MP3 sales.

That said, this little real world experiment once again seems to highlight how the claim that "people just want stuff for free" is a myth. Here was a case where people could get the music they wanted for free... but it came limited and so they weren't interested. It's rarely about people just wanting stuff for free. It's often about the restrictions or the convenience of things. The price is nice, but it's rarely the key factor, despite what some industry folks would like to claim.

from the took-'em-long-enough dept

Way back in 2003, we explained why fee-based WiFi almost certainly did not make sense for coffee shops like Starbucks. A year later, we had a discussion on how the program could be a lot more successful if it went free. But, for years, Starbucks insisted that the paid WiFi was a success. Except, if you watched, it gradually got more and more "like free." And that's because few people were actually using the paid version. And, now, finally, after all of these years, Starbucks is finallygoing to completely free WiFi. It's finally admitting that WiFi was always a complementary service to get more people to buy its high margin goods -- rather than a product itself.

from the now-with-added-free dept

Back in 2006, a startup called M2Z Networks asked the FCC to give it a sizable chunk of valuable spectrum for free, and in exchange, it would set up a nationwide wireless broadband network to offer free (and slow) "family-friendly" service and pay the government 5% of the revenues from a paid premium service also running on the network. We were skeptical of the plan because of its aggressive rollout schedule and the network's slow speed ("512 kbps" -- keep that figure in mind -- for the free tier/3 mbps for the paid tier), but mostly because of the huge expenditure required to build out a wireless network covering 95 percent of the US population -- expenditure which would be very difficult to recover from a free, slow service. The FCC wasn't convinced, either, and rejected M2Z's proposal in 2007, though that wasn't the end of it. A congresswoman introduced a bill tailor-made for M2Z's specs, but it went nowhere. Still, M2Z lives on, and it's now looking for a chunk of stimulus funding to start building its network.

It doesn't look like M2Z has updated its plan at all since 2006, doing nothing to address any of the concerns, beyond replacing the need for private investment with a second government handout, on top of its free spectrum. In particular, they don't seem to have upped their targets for the speed of their network. What the company was proposing wasn't exactly fast in 2006, is pretty pokey now, and will be even less attractive by the time its network would get up and running. In addition, it's worth clarifying that the "512 kbps" M2Z talks about is arrived at by adding the 384kbps downstream speed plus the 128 kbps upstream speed they plan to offer. That's a new trick we haven't seen before, even in the world of "up to" broadband speed advertising.

from the should-it? dept

A few friends have passed along Bill Gurley's excellent (as usual) analysis of how Google is disrupting the navigation market by ditching the two big players in the space (Tele Atlas and Navteq), going it alone and also (the big news) offering its navigation info for free. Gurley points out that the truly disruptive part is that Google is actually offering mobile operators a deal that is better than free, in that they get to share in some of the ad revenue associated with anyone using the services. The point is pretty clear: those who are relying on the old business model of getting paid for navigation info are likely in serious trouble.

Of course, there are some perception issues. Plenty of companies who have tried a "we'll pay you" approach to marketing often find that it actually breeds some level of mistrust, as partners/users start wondering why, and if there's some sort of nasty catch. Google, of course, has a pretty good reputation, and ought to be able to overcome that issue. However, it does make me wonder if this will set off the Justice Department (and Google's enemies) on some silly witchhunt, claiming that this is somehow "predatory pricing." That, of course, is ridiculous if you actually think it through. The only real problem with predatory pricing is if it's used purposely to drive others out of business to then jack up prices. But Google's idea is to just give it more opportunity to make ad revenue. It's not predatory, it's just smart from a business sense. However, with so much scrutiny on Google these days, you could certainly see this backfiring.

from the check-'em-out,-steve dept

Josh W points us to an article about Microsoft new mobile phone software that contains an odd quote from Steve Ballmer, responding to a question concerning Microsoft's plans to compete with Google's free Android mobile operating system:

"Free is not a business model," he said. "We are a commercial company, we will look to gain revenue and profit from our activities. You'll have to ask our competitors if they'll make money on free things."

Internet explorer. Bing. Microsoft's new security software. All free. All offered by Microsoft. Is Steve Ballmer admitting that he doesn't know about any of these things... or is he just expecting that the reporter and the readers of the article are flat-out stupid? Clearly, Microsoft seems to recognize that free is a part of lots of smart business models, so why is its CEO apparently acting clueless on this front? As clearly anyone who thought this through knows, free by itself is not a business model, but free, in combination with a larger business model often makes a lot of sense. That's what Google is doing, and it's what Microsoft is doing as well. So why is Steve Ballmer pretending otherwise?

from the it's-over,-done-with,-kaput dept

It's been almost exactly six years since I got into a bit of a debate about whether or not there was a real business model for fee-based WiFi. Not surprisingly, I didn't think it would last, even as there were a bunch of startups (some well-funded) trying to stake out a claim that they could build huge networks of paid WiFi access points. Those businesses never got very far. While there are still some fee-based WiFi access points around (mainly in airports), more and more are becoming totally free. Starbucks (which had been a holdout) has gone conditionally free, and last week Barnes & Noble WiFi went totally free. So can we now close the book on the idea that fee-based WiFi was ever a good business model?

from the how-dare-they! dept

I'm actually on a road trip across the US this week, still working along the way with a mix of EVDO and WiFi. I'm writing this post while connected to some WiFi in Cheyenne, Wyoming (nice town) and I'll be on my way into Nebraska shortly. That's why this story caught my eye: apparently the small town of Louisville, Nebraska has set up a free WiFi zone in their downtown and smartly decided to advertise that fact on the main highway that runs by the town. Yet, the State of Nebraska Roads Department has forced them to take down the sign, worried that other towns across the state might also demand that the state put up signs advertising free WiFi. Considering that the signs in Louisville weren't installed by the Roads Department in the first place, this seems like a totally misplaced worry. If other cities demand such signs, why not just tell them to put up their own signs if they want to? I might just have to swing by Louisville myself and post something using their WiFi.

from the wasn't-this-settled-already? dept

We thought that the whole debate over whether or not free WiFi helped businesses like restaurants had been settled years ago when restaurants like Panera shared some data on how much more business it drove. However, it seems some are still resisting this, so we get yet another series of articles asking whether or not free WiFi is good for business. There are definitely more businesses offering it these days, so that should be something of an answer itself. But it's surprising to see someone in the article include that old line about how restaurants are worried about people clogging up its tables. We've seen reports in the past showing that free WiFi actually tends to bring in people during off-peak times. As for the peak times? While there may be some freeloaders, it's not all that pleasant for them to hang out in a crowded restaurant or cafe either.